ANOTHER BULLSH*T AGREEMENT FROM THE TRUMP AND NETANYAHU MOB: The Lebanon-Israel Agreement Paves the way for more war.

 Elizabeth Berry

 ·

Follow

sdoStrnepohg2u230f1htu1214m24372caic2181u7153au1gaa0623m7091 ·

ANOTHER BULLSH*T AGREEMENT FROM THE TRUMP AND NETANYAHU MOB: The Lebanon-Israel Agreement Paves the way for more war. Furthermore, the "agreement" is set up so that when it is broken, Lebanon will be blamed.

After months of war, pressure and diplomatic choreography, Lebanon has effectively entered into a declaration of intent with Israel. The reactions were swift: condemnation from wide swaths of Lebanon’s political actors, including Hezbollah and its allies, as well as protests in the streets and criticism in the media. Photo is of the clown act members who signed this "agreement."

The problems with the signed document are many – it is unrealistic, politically explosive and constitutionally suspect. But perhaps the worst aspect of it is that it paves the way for a new war and for Lebanon to be blamed for it.

SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE AGREEMENT? Lebanon cannot simply do away with Hexbollah by decree as the wording of this document implies.

When it comes to "agreements", the Israelis have proven themselves to be snakes in the weeds for over 70 years.

Israel has long understood the value of loosely worded interim arrangements, declarations and deferred questions. The Oslo agreement is titled Declarations of Principles and sets out “general guidelines for the negotiations to come”. Borders, settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, security and sovereignty were left for later; and “later” never came. The interim architecture hardened into a reality in which Israel preserved freedom of action, expanded apartheid, occupation, endless land grabs, and blamed the Palestinians for failing to meet conditions they could never fully control.

Lebanon is not Palestine, and neither the documents nor the contexts are identical. But the diplomatic logic is similar enough to be alarming: Lebanon and Israel declaring “their ambition to end conflict” while avoiding final answers may appear flexible, but in practice, it is most likely a trap.

The framework Lebanon has now accepted will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement as written, primarily because the Lebanese state cannot simply replace Hezbollah by decree. DUH.

_______________________________

COMMENT: DUH DUH AND DUH!

Hezbollah’s weapons are not only a sad military reality; they are also embedded in a political argument about deterrence, community protection and the state’s failure to defend its own territory. One does not dissolve that structure by signing a text in Washington.

Nor can the Lebanese army suddenly become the sovereign deterrent force that everyone claims to want while remaining underfunded, overburdened, politically compromised and dependent on external military assistance that is itself limited by Israeli and American red lines.

Lebanon’s constitutional order does not give any one official the right to make such commitments alone. Treaties and international accords require institutional approval. Matters of war, peace and national security fall within the authority of the Council of Ministers, and major decisions require more than presidential will or prime ministerial consent.

A declaration of intent cannot be used to smuggle treaty-like obligations past the state’s own constitutional safeguards. Lebanon’s constitution also obliges the state to preserve its territorial integrity, meaning no declaration can quietly normalise an Israeli security presence or condition Lebanese sovereignty on Israel’s assessment of Hezbollah’s disarmament.

See less